From the Abstract:Since we're talking about statistical analysis, it is perhaps worth pointing out that gay men are 14 times more likely to abuse children than normal men. So, this leads to the obvious question: precisely how do the pedo-scientists define "better outcomes"?
… The current study applied … meta-analysis to 10 studies … to evaluate child psychological adjustment by parent sexual orientation. …[R]results indicated that children of gay fathers had significantly better outcomes than did children of heterosexual parents in all 3 models of meta-analysis.
The emphasis on “better” was in the original — a word that was noticed in the popular press.
If the results are true, then surely if we want what is best for the nation’s children, they should be placed in the households of men who enjoy non-procreative sex-like activities. (Actual sexual intercourse can only take place between males and females.) Leaving kids to fester with their own parents dooms them to lesser outcomes.
That prescription might to your ears sound absurd, but it does follow if Miller and his co-authors are right. Are they?
The authors used a controversial technique,badly applied and in the service of confirmation bias.
The trio used a statistical technique called “meta-analysis,” which I jokingly define as a method to prove a hypothesis “statistically” true which could not be proved to be actually true. Actually, it is a way to glue together results from disparate studies, so that one needn’t be troubled by the hard work of investigating the disparate studies. In other words, it is a controversial technique, often badly applied and in the service of confirmation bias. I suspect that is true here.
Miller et al. gathered 10 studies culled from “a list of over 6,000 citations of published and unpublished studies from 2005 and later based on the search terms same sex, same gender, gay, child, and parent in any combination.”
Somehow — it is a mystery — in their diligent search, the researchers did not turn up the remarkable 2012 study known by all sociologists, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” by Mark Regnerus. That study made national headlines!
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
11 out of 10 pedos agree
But, but, it is SCIENCE that totally recommends gay men should raise little kids, pedophile scientists explain:
16 comments:
"Meta-analysis" is how Nate Silver took a bunch of flawed polls and averaged them to get....the same wrong prediction the rest had.
Meta-analysis of nutrition studies is why so many people think animal fats are killers.
No surprise that the pedos are using the same method. Normalizing pedophilia is clearly the next bold new frontier after transvestism; you can see the same studies and "I know a good one" stories starting to pop up over the last year or so. And thanks to #pizzagate, we know why.
Absolutely disgusting.
(((Benjamin Graham Miller)))
"meta analysis" is the way academics say "making shit up"...
Statistics are sooooooooooo HOMOPHOBIC!!!!
From time to time we get ths "gays/women/blacks/ " are "better" than everyone else. Soom, they'll say that dead voters are better than living ones.
And they analysed only 0.167 % of available citations. This should've been laughed out of peer review
Maybe the really do better. Because no matter what happens they're going to end up with at least one father.
This is obvious. Abuse creates better outcomes!
Abuse for every child!!
They analyzed "gay" relationships, not specifically male homosexual relationships. Given that lesbian couples are more likely to acquire kids a significant portion of the poor bastards ended up with two BPD moms. There is no way that the kids brought up in these insanely unstable gay households don't have huge issues coming into adulthood.
Yes, they are unstable (had this conversation with gay marriage advocates). A revolving door of relationships and hook ups is a feature and not a bug of homosexual life. Everyone knows this and yet none of these people give a rat's ass about the living lifestyle accessories caught in the middle of that flaming mess.
Since we're talking about statistical analysis, it is perhaps worth pointing out that gay men are 14 times more likely to abuse children than normal men. So, this leads to the obvious question: precisely how do the pedo-scientists define "better outcomes"?
Sexier outcomes.
The Apocalypse can't come soon enough. It will be nice to sit back and watch the masses commence with the cleansing.
Better for the pedos.
Round up the pedos and their apologists, send them in camps where they can be put to work for their Alt-Right overlords. Best case scenario!
I know this is the point, but given I'm from the Department of Redundancy Department I must point out how sick (to death) I am of the raising of "peer review !Science!" to god-status. It's the apotheosis of "Figures don't lie, but liars figure," is it not?
Those who believe they can alter Nature by publishing highly amplified bullshit will definitely discover that the physics of a Winchester 147 grain Ranger T trumps their "I get to molest your child because !Science! says so" Every. Single. Time.
There is no such thing as coexistence with individuals who espouse and/or practice such evil. Those people should seriously consider the life expectancy connotations of that concept.
@ Laguna Beach Fogey, no. no. no. Round them up for use in testing new concepts in bullet construction. The !Science! of improving personal protection demands some sacrifices...and who better to make them?
"Precisely how do the pedo-scientists define "better outcomes”?
As a parent, I would never trust a scientist promoting a pedafile as being a good parent.
Per abstract "evaluate child psychological adjustment by parent sexual orientation" .....
psychological adjustment? What in the hell does that mean? These folks have no clue what their talking about.
Per abstract ..." results indicated that children of gay fathers had significantly better outcomes than did children of heterosexual parents "
To this I say "BullShit."
One of the things that has made me very, very worried about the world is the fact that the basic laws of rationality are now routinely denied.
There is objective Truth Some things will always be true and other things will always be false.
Go here: http://www.onepeterfive.com/no-third-way-the-fundamentals-of-rationality/
These "Pedo Scientist" are bent. They are predators. There idea of a better outcome is anathema to any sane grounded idea of outcome.
Its just not right taking children away from their biological mother and father. Its a modern form of slavery. A theft of childhood in essence. It stunts them and it takes them well into adult years to figure it out what in the hell they went through as children. This is a theft of years of a child’s life. Its simply fucked up and its costing society dearly.
To expand on this issue I will link to two blog posts
First, Dad29 back in 2006
Homosexual Parenting: Not Yet Proven Safe for Children
http://dad29.blogspot.com/2006/03/homosexual-parenting-not-yet-proven.html
If you read far enough to the comment section in his blog post you can see a SJW in action proudly puffing about purging American Psychological Association board members who did not fall in line with group think. SJW delight in ruining careers don't they? Surprise surprise surprise!
Second in "Pandora's Nursery: Adults Raised by Gays Take Up the Cause of Children's Rights"
http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo38/pandoras-nursery.php
This is an eye opening account of Robert Oscar Lopez, who was raised by two Lesbians and he went on to Launch the International Children's Rights Institute, a non-partisan center dedicated to voicing every child's right to (among other things) a mother and a father.
Read the link, Lopez gathers info on the cornucopia of shit that “BIGGay” is shoveling down our collective throats.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.